Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

He said, 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you'
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/1000land.htm ^

Posted on 01/27/2007 1:36:11 PM PST by tpaine

By Vin Suprynowicz

For years, Garry Watson, 49, of little Bunker, Mo., (population 390) had been squabbling with town officials over the sewage line easement which ran across his property to the adjoining, town-operated sewage lagoon.

Residents say officials grew dissatisfied with their existing easement, and announced they were going to excavate a new sewer line across the landowner's property. Capt. Chris Ricks of the Missouri Highway Patrol reports Watson's wife, Linda, was served with "easement right-of-way papers" on Sept. 6. She gave the papers to Watson when he got home at 5 a.m. the next morning from his job at a car battery recycling plant northeast of Bunker. Watson reportedly went to bed for a short time, but arose about 7 a.m. when the city work crew arrived.

"He told them 'If you come on my land, I'll kill you,' " Bunker resident Gregg Tivnan told me last week. "Then the three city workers showed up with a backhoe, plus a police officer. They'd sent along a cop in a cop car to guard the workers, because they were afraid there might be trouble. Watson had gone inside for a little while, but then he came out and pulled his SKS (semi-automatic rifle) out of his truck, steadied it against the truck, and he shot them."

Killed in the September 7 incident, from a range of about 85 yards, were Rocky B. Gordon, 34, a city maintenance man, and David Thompson, 44, an alderman who supervised public works. City maintenance worker Delmar Eugene Dunn, 51, remained in serious but stable condition the following weekend.

Bunker police Officer Steve Stoops, who drove away from the scene after being shot, was treated and released from a hospital for a bullet wound to his arm and a graze to the neck.

Watson thereupon kissed his wife goodbye, took his rifle, and disappeared into the woods, where his body was found two days later -- dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound.

Following such incidents, the local papers are inevitably filled with well-meaning but mawkish doggerel about the townsfolk "pulling together" and attempting to "heal" following the "tragedy." There are endless expressions of frustration, pretending to ask how such an otherwise peaceful member of the community could "just snap like that."

In fact, the supposedly elusive explanation is right before our eyes.

"He was pushed," Clarence Rosemann -- manager of the local Bunker convenience store, who'd done some excavation work for Watson -- told the big-city reporters from St. Louis. Another area resident, who didn't want to be identified, told the visiting newsmen, "Most people are understanding why Garry Watson was upset. They are wishing he didn't do it, but they are understanding why he did it."

You see, to most of the people who work in government and the media these days -- especially in our urban centers -- "private property" is a concept out of some dusty, 18th century history book. Oh, sure, "property owners" are allowed to live on their land, so long as they pay rent to the state in the form of "property taxes."

But an actual "right" to be let alone on our land to do whatever we please -- always providing we don't actually endanger the lives or health of our neighbors?

Heavens! If we allowed that, how would we enforce all our wonderful new "environmental protection" laws, or the "zoning codes," or the laws against growing hemp or tobacco or distilling whisky without a license, or any of the endless parade of other malum prohibitum decrees which have multiplied like swarms of flying ants in this nation over the past 87 years?

What does it mean to say we have any "rights" or "freedoms" at all, if we cannot peacefully enjoy that property which we buy with the fruits of our labors?

In his 1985 book "Takings," University of Chicago Law Professor Richard Epstein wrote that, "Private property gives the right to exclude others without the need for any justification.

Indeed, it is the ability to act at will and without need for justification within some domain which is the essence of freedom, be it of speech or of property."

"Unfortunately," replies James Bovard, author of the book "Freedom in Chains: The Rise of the State and the Demise of the Citizen," "federal law enforcement agents and prosecutors are making private property much less private. ...

Park Forest, Ill. in 1994 enacted an ordinance that authorizes warrantless searches of every single-family rental home by a city inspector or police officer, who are authorized to invade rental units 'at all reasonable times.' ... Federal Judge Joan Gottschall struck down the searches as unconstitutional in 1998, but her decision will have little or no effect on the numerous other localities that authorize similar invasions of privacy."

We are now involved in a war in this nation, a last-ditch struggle in which the other side contends only the king's men are allowed to use force or the threat of force to push their way in wherever they please, and that any peasant finally rendered so desperate as to employ the same kind of force routinely employed by our oppressors must surely be a "lone madman" who "snapped for no reason." No, we should not and do not endorse or approve the individual choices of folks like Garry Watson. But we are still obliged to honor their memories and the personal courage it takes to fight and die for a principle, even as we lament both their desperate, misguided actions ... and the systematic erosion of our liberties which gave them rise.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society
KEYWORDS: castledoctrine; kelo; privateproperty; propertyrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960 ... 1,061-1,079 next last
To: UpAllNight
"Does he really think that"

"...let's say the lady of the house noticed a shotgun in my trucks rack and told me to not bring a gun on her property from then on."

"I suspect I would smile, say yes mam, make a mental note that this woman was weird, -- and continue to carry my shotgun..." -- tpaine


921 posted on 01/29/2007 4:52:49 PM PST by Luis Gonzalez (Some people see the world as they would want it to be, effective people see the world as it is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 913 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I don't understand why you refer to me as a gun-grabber and absolutist. We both (at least at one time you did) approve of the GA gun bill and the one time where you indicated agreement or disagreement with my posts you agreed with me.




UpAllnight: (responding to third party)
Uh no. The county had LEGAL permission to be on the easement. The nutcase was trying to illegally revoke their right by denying them access.

Your unsolicted response: Exactly. -- Nut-cases ~insist~ they have absolute rights. -- Just like Watson & Luis.



We both agree on the GA bill and both agree on this nutcase.


922 posted on 01/29/2007 4:55:55 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 630 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

Yes. Some businesses with private parking lots and a requirement to keep uncontrolled weapons out of their perimeter have actually set up off-site parking lots.


923 posted on 01/29/2007 4:59:04 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 919 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

You will take any manner of behavior to duck the question.

Do you approve of the GA bill?

Now don't give me any malarky since you will write paragraphs around the issue but will not answer yes or no.

Why?


924 posted on 01/29/2007 5:01:22 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight; CGTRWK

That wouldn't account for an increase in the school budget. Added expenses, such as power, fuel, etc. might or an influx of kids that required more facilities or teachers.


925 posted on 01/29/2007 5:04:30 PM PST by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 916 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; tpaine

I dunno. Seems like you and tpaine have something between the two of you. Somehow, even though we both agree (I think) on the GA bill and we both agree on the nutcase of this thread, he has labeled me with you as a gun-grabber and absolutist. I really don't want to get caught up between the two of you but I really wonder about tpaine.

He will write paragraphs often misleading about me but will not answer ONE simple question on whether or not he approves of the GA bill. He could solve all the wondering by a simple statement.


926 posted on 01/29/2007 5:05:14 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: durasell

--That wouldn't account for an increase in the school budget. --

It would account for part of it. I am sure that in the last 20 years they have had to build new school buildings.


927 posted on 01/29/2007 5:07:02 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 925 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

That's true.

What is interesting is that schools are now becoming too expensive for many communities. Education is expensive and some places can no longer afford to provide it.


928 posted on 01/29/2007 5:09:32 PM PST by durasell (!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 927 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez

Thanks for reposting this luis:



Here's a little thought exercise for all you property fundamentalists on the right to carry issue. [expanded]

I'm a general building contractor, and I used to occasionally work for ranch or estate owners -- people who routinely 'post' their property with signs saying "-- No Guns, No Hunting --".
Most post because they want to sell hunting rights, not to ban hunting or guns.

During the bidding process, I would routinely arrive at their property in my pickup, w/gun rack in the the rear window, and normally I would mention that I was always looking for property to hunt on.
-- Thus they were well aware that I carried arms in my work vehicles, -- often..

-- But as they had ~invited~ me to their property to bid on work, the subject of hunting or guns would not be discussed in detail.

--- Now after a routine construction contract had been signed, and I commenced work at their home property, let's say the lady of the house noticed a shotgun in my trucks rack and told me to not bring a gun on her property from then on.

I suspect I would smile, say yes mam, make a mental note that this woman was weird about guns, and I might explain that I was hunting elsewhere after work that day..

On subsequent days ~if I so chose~, I could continue to carry my shotgun, ~[inside behind the seat, or in a toolbox, so as to not 'alarm' the irrational housewife] -- without violating any known laws, --- as my construction contract gave me permission to be on the homeowners property w/tools, -- to do the job as per plans & specifications. --

--- Nothing in that contract, or in common or constitutional law, gives that homeowner the right to infringe on my right to carry that shotgun in my truck, just like the rest of my tools. ---
I'm well aware that by taking that gun ~out of the truck- or out of my toolbox, -- I'd be on shaky constitutional & legal ground as a home property owner can be as weird about guns as she chooses.

- But in any case, - carrying that shotgun did not affect the homeowners property rights in ANY way..

Get the principle yet fellas?

Obviously, you cannot or will not..

Why? -- Why is our right to carry such a threat to you that you would deny invited guest workers on your property a gun in their vehicles?
A gun is just another tool, like hammers, knives, etc. -- All are also weapons.

Either you trust your employees with weapons, or you do it yourself.

And in my experience, those afraid of weapons cannot do for themselves. Its sort of a catch 22 situation. These weird people are afraid of other [armed] people, yet they need them.
-- What to do? -- In their panic they attempt to ban arms, - guns, knives, hammers..

-- Then we all lose, as Koestler put it so eloquently..
1,772



Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1750014/posts?page=177


929 posted on 01/29/2007 5:10:47 PM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 921 | View Replies]

To: All

From tpaines post requesting comments. Unfortunately, tpaine will not state that he supports it. Why? Does tpaine NOT support the bill that he describes as "would let workers have guns in cars"? Does tpaine have a hidded agenda? I have no idea. tpaine called me a gun-grabber and absolutist after I affirmed my support for the bill. Something is very strange with tpaine. I wish I knew what it was? Any guys been around hear longer that can give me some background on what is going on?



Bill would let workers have guns in cars (GA)

Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1773131/posts


930 posted on 01/29/2007 5:11:42 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 907 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I see that you were trying to trap luis by leaving out details pertinent to your argument. Is that why you won't answer my simple question?

Do you approve of the GA gun bill?


931 posted on 01/29/2007 5:15:09 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 929 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight

Re-read my answer to you at #920.

If you can't understand it, get help.


932 posted on 01/29/2007 5:15:42 PM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 924 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

--I'm well aware that by taking that gun ~out of the truck- or out of my toolbox, -- I'd be on shaky constitutional & legal ground as a home property owner can be as weird about guns as she chooses.--

If she was like "granny" on the BHB, you might get a load of buckshot!


933 posted on 01/29/2007 5:16:49 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 929 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

I have to infer from that (since you directed me to do so and won't give a straight answer) that you do not approve of the GA gun bill which, in your words, let's a person carry a gun in their car.

And you call me a gun-grabber, gun-grabber.


934 posted on 01/29/2007 5:18:43 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Question. Are you working to defeat that GA bill that would allow people to carry their guns in their car when they go to the mall, to the grocery store, to the gas station? I don't understand why you are against this bill?


935 posted on 01/29/2007 5:21:00 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 932 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Looking back, I am now more confused than ever. Here is what you posted. A repost of my words and your reponse. It APPEARS that here you support the GA bill but now you say you don't agree with a bill that agrees with the right to carry a gun in your car. What gives?




(My words): You said you agreed with the GA bill. Given that, one can infer that you agree with my employer's right to prohibit uncontrolled guns on his property.

You: Daffy inference, as the GA bill agrees that an employee has a right to carry arms in his vehicle.


936 posted on 01/29/2007 5:32:34 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 935 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

"Our Constitution explicitly restricts the power of our federal government; and our Bill of Rights guarantees that NO government may infringe upon our God given unalienable rights."

Our constitution also defines rebellion as a crime.


937 posted on 01/29/2007 5:35:32 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 920 | View Replies]

To: Luis Gonzalez; UpAllNight
I see that you were trying to trap luis by leaving out details pertinent to your argument.

My 'exercise' was first posted to Luis over a month ago.

Since then luis has been posting 'out of context' excerpts, "trying to trap" me by leaving out details pertinent to my entire argument.

Try to keep up.

938 posted on 01/29/2007 5:48:22 PM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 931 | View Replies]

To: UpAllNight
You need rest. -- And professional help.
939 posted on 01/29/2007 5:50:20 PM PST by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia <)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 934 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

--Try to keep up.--

I don't remember you or luis before this weekend. No way to "keep up" with what y'all have had going for the past month. On the other hand, you do seem to have a habit of baiting people. Pretending to be for the GA gun bill and against this nut and then calling me a gun-grabber and absolutist when I declared my support for the bill. I do wonder about your motives.


940 posted on 01/29/2007 5:52:13 PM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 938 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920921-940941-960 ... 1,061-1,079 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson